No object, no foul

[The Kid]

Bad journalism to even get this started. Santos in the infamous foto is in the midst of twirling the stick in his hand just as he\'s winning the derby.

The videotape, which I just saw on my local news, shows this. As he\'s changing his grip, there is no way he could be holding an object; it would be like twirling a baton while holding a battery.

There is no object. There is no foul. And the Miami Herald reporter is a dipshit.

[Anonymous User]

You could tell from the original picture that Bailey on E.M.inem was up in the saddle and I thought past the wire Santos could be doing anything with the whip too. Good point.

[LasVegasHorseplayer]

Yesterdays Miami Herald caption alledged that the photo \"clearly showed a bronze colored, metalic object\" in Santos right hand...

Today the Herald, (according to the DRF front page report) states that the photo \"depicts a dark in the space between Santos\' right hand and his whip\"....Now, which is it going to be?

I thought the photo was a stretch of the imagination in the first place, now the paper that broke the story can\'t even come up with a good interpretation.

Not only that but if you watch the replay of Santos switching the whip to his left hand shortly after he crosses the finish line, it doesn\'t appear that he has anything in his hand other than the whip handle. He makes the switch much to quick and smoothly for him to have been juggling another object in the same hand...

Maybe those hillbillies down in Florida are just sore loosers because they wanted their Florida Derby hero to win the Derby...Or maybe those hillbillies in Kentucky are sore because a NY-bred gelding finally stole their thunder....

Go Funny Cide!



Post Edited (05-11-03 14:16)

[kev]

1 in 129  not bad

[LasVegasHorseplayer]

The 1 in 129 statistic regarding a NY-bred winning the Kentucky Derby is meaningless...
There is an old saying used in the study of probability that \"statistics never lie.\"

The 1-129 stat is a perfect example of this.

The relevant number is the percentage of winners from total starters.

I have no idea how many NY-breds have gone to the post in the Kentucky Derby but I would imagine that it is a small fraction of the total number of Kentucky-breds who have run in the race. If NY-breds averaged one starter per year for the last 129 years then the number of NY-bred winners is about what should be expected. If the race had consisted of 10 or 12 NY-breds and one or two Kentucky-breds for the last 129 years, how many Kentucky-bred winners do you suppose there would have been?

There is no question that over the years NY-breds haven\'t been on a par with Kentucky-breds but that is to be expected considering that Kentucky is the home breeding state for the vast majority of the so-called \"blue-blood\" breeding stock.

Over the years had the race consisted of an equal number of starters being Kentucky, New York, Florida and California bred , I believe that you would have seen more than a fair share of the winners coming from states other than Kentucky.

[TGJB]

As I pointed out last year, the same thing applies to the \"small\" number of front running Derby winners-- when you take into account the size of the fields, front runners have done very well.

[kev]

Look i said that cause all this talk about ky being mad cause a ny bred won, we don\'t care if its a Utah bred that won. Ky had to check into this, what do you think they was going to do, just say oh its nothing. Whats with the name calling about hillbillies??? I guess ny runs a clean program??? I have no problem where these horses are from, where they are bred.

[MO]

If memory serves, the last NY bred to hit the board (ran 3rd) was At The Threshold with Eddie Maple up.

I worked at the NY tracks for 5 years and continue to work there on ocassion. It is the cleanest of all I have ever visited or worked at, and I have worked at 27 and visited close to 50. That\'s not to say they are perfect, just better than everywhere else.

[kev]

Cleanest?? meaning???